Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Israel has nukes as well. Iran launches, Israel launches a counter attack. They won't care if it was a bunch of crazies in military or the government. Iran ceases to exist as a nation. However, Iran being an islamic nation, they would likely try to avoid hitting Jerusalem, as it's the third holiest city in Islam. It also happens to be functioning as Israel's capital, so the Israelli government might just make it through largely intact assuming no one else takes advantage of the situation.

Let's assume Iran doesn't hold back and is able to take Israel out completely in a first strike with no counterattack. Iran just nuked Jerusalem and is now embargoed by, if not at war with the rest of the islamic world.

There is simply no scenerio I can see for Iran launching a nuclear weapon against Israel that works out to their benefit.

Iran does not have to launch it from its own country. It can give the bomb to a terrorist organization who would gladly use it on Israel. And, even though you may be able to trace it back to Iran, it may be too late to prevent the initial attack.

Second, if Israel launches a nuclear attack on Iran and succeeds (in terms of the casualties), while stopping an Iran nuke, it will make things difficult for Israel. Yes, it may have prevented the attack, but, the end result would tell differently. And, you can say peace goodbye forever in that region, and it will get a lot more harder for Israeli people to live in security, if that ever happens.

I am guessing, they would assume the second scenario is a big factor Israel may decide many times before taking action, while Iran can use underhanded methods (like using al kaeda) to achieve success.

That is why Israel would never want to give Iran the opportunity to have something like that ready for their use. There is no way you can say for sure, Iran wouldn't try something that crazy.

We were discussing a proposal that the US agrees to respond against any nation that launches a first strike against any other nation as a universal deterrant.

thats pointless. something like that is politically impossible.

Quote:

Also, while what you say may be true in the minds of some, Israel has in the past openly defied the US and did whatever they wanted.

not really. in small regional issues, yes maybe. but even Israel's local Lebanon or Palestinian wars (not even speaking about the larger ones) were run largely with US backing. Something like Israel performing a nuclear attack on Iran is impossible without a US backing.

Quote:

Iran does not have to launch it from its own country. It can give the bomb to a terrorist organization who would gladly use it on Israel.

that is possible even today, and there is no longterm way to prevent it except running a less aggressive and anti-Arab foreign policy.

Quote:

That is why Israel would never want to give Iran the opportunity to have something like that ready for their use. There is no way you can say for sure, Iran wouldn't try something that crazy.

well, you know, the only ones to have actually used nuclear weapons on civilian people in history are - surprise - not islamic crazies but the US government... so that argument isnt really very valid.

We were discussing a proposal that the US agrees to respond against any nation that launches a first strike against any other nation as a universal deterrant.

No, that's not what I was proposing. I suggested that the United States, or a coalition of like-minded nuclear powers, sign treaty agreements with potential target states that would provide for nuclear retaliation in the event the treaty state is attacked with a nuclear weapon. As I said in my follow-up posting, I don't expect we'd extend the "umbrella" without obtaining something in return. Submission to an extensive nuclear monitoring program would be at the top of the list.

Unlike Seifall, I have more faith in the abilities of the IAEA to monitor nuclear programs. They correctly concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear program, and North Korea felt compelled to oust the IAEA from its facilities in 2002. The DPRK conducted its first domestic weapon test some four years later. (There's some speculation the DPRK jointly tested a weapon in Pakistan as early as 1998.) Perhaps they could have developed the weapons under the gaze of the IAEA's monitors and equipment; we'll never know.

And, unlike some other posters, I have no doubt the Israelis are perfectly capable of taking matters into their own hands without consulting with Washington. The 1982 attack on Iraq's reactor does not appear to have been decided in concert with the United States; in fact, one observer credits growing divisions between Israel and the Reagan administration with encouraging Israel to go it alone. It appears that Israel recently mooted the question of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities; the Bush administration refused to support such a move.

No, that's not what I was proposing. I suggested that the United States, or a coalition of like-minded nuclear powers, sign treaty agreements with potential target states that would provide for nuclear retaliation in the event the treaty state is attacked with a nuclear weapon. As I said in my follow-up posting, I don't expect we'd extend the "umbrella" without obtaining something in return. Submission to an extensive nuclear monitoring program would be at the top of the list.

Unlike Seifall, I have more faith in the abilities of the IAEA to monitor nuclear programs. They correctly concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear program, and North Korea felt compelled to oust the IAEA from its facilities in 2002. The DPRK conducted its first domestic weapon test some four years later. (There's some speculation the DPRK jointly tested a weapon in Pakistan as early as 1998.) Perhaps they could have developed the weapons under the gaze of the IAEA's monitors and equipment; we'll never know.

Except that is exactly what we'll end up with under the proposal. The US officially commited to use nuclear weapons if a signatory is attacked, with potential signatories being nations that we don't have particualy good relationships with. Even if they agreed to give some concessions, the very nature of the agreement invites duplicity. You specificly mentioned Israel attacking Iran as an example. If the moment actually comes, either the US attacks a nominal ally, or does nothing making the treaty worthless either way. WOuld Iran really have faith that the US would carry out it's end of the bargin? It's unworkable.

Unlike Seifall, I have more faith in the abilities of the IAEA to monitor nuclear programs. They correctly concluded that Iraq had ended its nuclear program, and North Korea felt compelled to oust the IAEA from its facilities in 2002. The DPRK conducted its first domestic weapon test some four years later. (There's some speculation the DPRK jointly tested a weapon in Pakistan as early as 1998.) Perhaps they could have developed the weapons under the gaze of the IAEA's monitors and equipment; we'll never know.

I do not question IAEA's ability to find plutonium or uranium which can be used for the civil like the military.
I just find IAEA 's power other than what I just mentioned stricly non existent.
From the interview you posted I just found this quote , pretty telling :

Spoiler for CNN interview:

Dr. ElBaradei, thanks very much for joining us.

You remember those days very, very vividly. You were sitting at the U.N. Security Council that day when Colin Powell made his statement. What was going through your mind as you saw war clouds develop?

MOHAMED ELBARADEI, DIRECTOR GENERAL, IAEA: Well, clearly, Wolf, the nuclear file was somewhat different from chemical and biological. With regard to the nuclear file, we were pretty convinced that we haven't seen really any evidence that Iraq resumed its nuclear weapon program, because we knew we dismantled that program in 1997, and our focus was to see whether anything has been resuscitated between '98 and 2002.

We didn't see that. As Hans was mentioned, there was a question of the uranium importation, there was a question of that tubes but these two stories we clearly realized that they did not support the conclusion that Iraq was restarting its nuclear weapon program.

With regard to chemical and biological - and that was Hans Blix fight - I think the situation was more complicated, because, although there was not much good intelligence, the presumption - and I think that was also shared by Hans, shared by many members of the Council - that because Iraq had them before, because it had accused them before, and there was no record of either destruction or production, there was this nagging question: Do they still have them?

And, frankly, because there was - we were dealing with a regime that was brutal, that had used chemical weapons in the past, the level of tolerance was very low, and the level of suspicion was extremely high. And - I think that's how we should look at - the question in context, frankly, yes.

BLITZER: You remember what Dick Cheney said, the vice president of the United States, only days before the war started. And I'll put it up on the screen. He said: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency in this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what Saddam Hussein was doing."

When you heard Dick Cheney say that a year ago, what were you thinking?

ELBARADEI: I was thinking that he was not really seeing what I see on the ground. I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that support Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement, so - and I thought to myself, well, history is going to be the judge.

BLITZER: Well, history has been the judge to a certain degree .

History has to be the judge in a certain degree ?
So even if the IAEA knew Iraq was free of nuclear weapons, they couldn't do more than that ?
Aren't they supposed to be an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes. Though established independently of the United Nations under its own international treaty (the IAEA Statute), the IAEA reports to both the General Assembly and the Security Council. ?
History is going to be the judge ? The director of the IAEA who clearly claims there is no use ? The UN which like always just made a resolution .
2003 clearly discredited both UN and IAEA. El Baradei, Kofi Annan, they were labeled as vital man who were influential, look at what happenned in Iraq and Rwanda. This was a tragedy.

And, unlike some other posters, I have no doubt the Israelis are perfectly capable of taking matters into their own hands without consulting with Washington. The 1982 attack on Iraq's reactor does not appear to have been decided in concert with the United States; in fact, one observer credits growing divisions between Israel and the Reagan administration with encouraging Israel to go it alone. It appears that Israel recently mooted the question of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities; the Bush administration refused to support such a move.

there is a major difference between 1) attacking a single target with conventional guided missiles, 2) launching a war, and 3) using nuclear weapons. while 1) has indeed probably been done by Israel without full consent of the US, 2) has not, most definitely. and 3) is unthinkable without US approval.

Quote:

I just find IAEA 's power other than what I just mentioned stricly non
existent.

that is correct. the IAEA does not have any real executive power to enforce anything on anyone. it is merely a supervisory agency.

Quote:

2003 clearly discredited both UN and IAEA. El Baradei, Kofi Annan, they were labeled as vital man who were influential, look at what happenned in Iraq and Rwanda. This was a tragedy.

i dont think 2003 discredited either. rather, i think the US - or more precisely the Bush administration - discredited itself in trampling over both the IAEA and the UN. if you are not brainwashed by Western media (or know how to tell propaganda from facts), the picture is really quite clear. the US has overstepped whatever international law there is repeatedly and clearly - already 1999 was a blatant example, and 2003 was yet another - and it ignored whatever the IAEA has said, with open lies as the Cheney one you've cited - even although the IAEA statements proved perfectly correct after extensive subsequent examination.

all that says is that the US does not want a world that is international and run with mutual consent of the leading nations. the US wants a US-controlled world, to the utmost extent possible. the whole rest of the US foreign policy easily follows from this.

there is a major difference between 1) attacking a single target with conventional guided missiles, 2) launching a war, and 3) using nuclear weapons. while 1) has indeed probably been done by Israel without full consent of the US, 2) has not, most definitely. and 3) is unthinkable without US approval.

Yes, there is a major difference, but it's not the only example. Israel also sold advanced weapons to China until the US threatened to stop arms sales. Further, Israel has stated that they would attack Iran if they were close to developing nuclear weapons with or without US approval. The US would never give Israel approval to launch a nuclear strike, so it's highly unlikely they'd even ask.

Quote:

all that says is that the US does not want a world that is international and run with mutual consent of the leading nations. the US wants a US-controlled world, to the utmost extent possible. the whole rest of the US foreign policy easily follows from this.

Every nation wants the most influence possible though. The US is simply in a position to have a lot more than most other nations. It's nothing unusual in world affairs.

Iran does not have to launch it from its own country. It can give the bomb to a terrorist organization who would gladly use it on Israel. And, even though you may be able to trace it back to Iran, it may be too late to prevent the initial attack.

Some points, an Atomic device at it's infant technological state weighs somewhere around two metric tonnes.
Miniturization of the bomb can only be started after knowing how much material can be pressurized into a cake without going critical meaning you need past data or do it through try and error.
The present scud type missle can not deliver two tonnes.
An ill shielded bomb will light up like a shining star to a satellite searching for gamma ray radiation.

Yes, there is a major difference, but it's not the only example. Israel also sold advanced weapons to China until the US threatened to stop arms sales. Further, Israel has stated that they would attack Iran if they were close to developing nuclear weapons with or without US approval. The US would never give Israel approval to launch a nuclear strike, so it's highly unlikely they'd even ask.

Israel will not do a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran. Ever. they know just as well as everyone else that it would be equivalent to signing the death note for themselves. what they might do is a conventional attack on some of Iran's nuclear/military objects. that is a lot less risky and potentially does not require US approval.

Quote:

Every nation wants the most influence possible though. The US is simply in a position to have a lot more than most other nations. It's nothing unusual in world affairs.

yeah. the problem is that the US position since the collapse of the USSR is one of unprecedented military dominance. never before in history, a nation was able to largely control the whole world by force. neither did a nation ever before have so much hatred against itself. and nor did ever before the people on the other side have nuclear weapons or the potential to obtain them. which is why IMHO the contemporary US foreign policy is nothing short of suicidal. it's a walk on the brink of an abyss. in my personal opinion (and it's a very informed opinion, too), it will all end with a mushroom cloud over one of the large US coast cities.

Israel will not do a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran. Ever. they know just as well as everyone else that it would be equivalent to signing the death note for themselves. what they might do is a conventional attack on some of Iran's nuclear/military objects. that is a lot less risky and potentially does not require US approval.

If Iran had nukes, and Israel was convinced Iran was planing a strike, they might very well use them. Those are some big ifs though. Also, since you pointed out that Israel would possibly launch a conventional attack that "potentially does not require US approval" you'd be willing to conceed that the policies of Israel are not dictated by the US?

Quote:

yeah. the problem is that the US position since the collapse of the USSR is one of unprecedented military dominance. never before in history, a nation was able to largely control the whole world by force.

I guess you've never heard of Great Britain.

Quote:

neither did a nation ever before have so much hatred against itself.

What? Are you saying American hates itself, or other people hate America?

Quote:

and nor did ever before the people on the other side have nuclear weapons or the potential to obtain them.

Now I know you've heard of the Soviet Union, since you mentioned them. Last I checked they had lots of nukes.

Quote:

which is why IMHO the contemporary US foreign policy is nothing short of suicidal. it's a walk on the brink of an abyss. in my personal opinion (and it's a very informed opinion, too), it will all end with a mushroom cloud over one of the large US coast cities.

How exactly are terrorists going to get their hands on this nuclear device? Nuclear weapons are not something you can make in a mountain cave. They require a lot of high tech infrastructure to refine the nuclear material. Only a nation or possibly a huge multi-national coorporation would have the means. The only way terrorists could get one is if someone gave it to them. There aren't exactly a lot of candidates for that either. Their best chance would be Pakistan, but if that happens it means extremists have already taken over the country, and the US would probably be keeping as close a watch as possible on their nukes.

Also, I'd point out that it most certainly wouldn't end with a mushroom cloud over a US city.

yeah. the problem is that the US position since the collapse of the USSR is one of unprecedented military dominance. never before in history, a nation was able to largely control the whole world by force. neither did a nation ever before have so much hatred against itself. and nor did ever before the people on the other side have nuclear weapons or the potential to obtain them. which is why IMHO the contemporary US foreign policy is nothing short of suicidal. it's a walk on the brink of an abyss. in my personal opinion (and it's a very informed opinion, too), it will all end with a mushroom cloud over one of the large US coast cities.

Yeah, very informed.

We could like, start with the whole the USA is the most hated nation in history and go from there. Point: Nanjing massacre riled up people a lot more than McDonalds-in-your-backyard did. So are countless other "local" atrocities. Another point: blind anti-Americanism (whereby everything American sucks, as your opinion seems to demonstrate here) is not the prevailing diplomatic stance of most, if not all, European states, no matter what the prevailing public opinion is.

Oh, and yet another hint: much of the USA's hegemony in world politics is based on its economic strength and its system of alliances as well, not just some sort of singular, oppressive "force." The Marshall plan and NATO ensure a coalition of "Western/First World" states, for one, and the Bretton Woods Conference was a landmark economic conference that established the central role of the USA in international currency until Nixon abolished it and it certainly was not something done by having American soldiers pointing guns at the British Monarch or some such.

And finally: mushroom clouds? Newsflash: the Cold War ended almost two decades ago. Nuclear proliferation is a touchy, complex affair, with many viewpoints to take on, but simplifications like this don't help out the debate.

That is a matter of perspective. Suppose Iran does build nukes and obliterates Israel. Just how high on the moral ladder will the Persians stand with their Arab brothers for being the ones to finally destroy Israel?

That is a matter of perspective. Suppose Iran does build nukes and obliterates Israel. Just how high on the moral ladder will the Persians stand with their Arab brothers for being the ones to finally destroy Israel?

Not high at all, since they blew up the city Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven from in the process.

Not high at all, since they blew up the city Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven from in the process.

If you consider the presumed fact that at one time Saudis were actually planning to destroy Kaaba, around the time they were showered with the British gold, you can see, those things do not matter a lot, when it comes to bigger gains. Islamic world is full of views like that.

Not high at all, since they blew up the city Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven from in the process.

I thought Muhammad died in Medina.....kinda hard for him to die on the Arabian Peninsula and then ascend to heaven from a Jewish city.......

The Dome of the Rock, being among a complex of buildings on the Temple Mount, (the other being the Al-Aqsa Mosque) is one of the holiest sites in Islam. Its significance stems from the religious beliefs regarding the rock at its heart. According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from where Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel.

If Iran had nukes, and Israel was convinced Iran was planing a strike, they might very well use them.

no. "planning a strike" is not a justification for a preemptive nuclear attack. Israel would be eradicated after that, by whatever means available to Arab states.

Quote:

Those are some big ifs though. Also, since you pointed out that Israel would possibly launch a conventional attack that "potentially does not require US approval" you'd be willing to conceed that the policies of Israel are not dictated by the US?

how should I best put it... Israel is like an attack dog which is being kept at a short leash. it cannot do anything major by itself, but it can bite its neighborhood every now and then. ok as an analogy?

although tbh what that analogy is missing is the backlink from the dog to the master.. which is also substantial in this particular case.

Quote:

I guess you've never heard of Great Britain.

the British Empire was never even close. or did it have a fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers capable of bombing almost every country in the world into the ground within months?

Quote:

What? Are you saying American hates itself, or other people hate America?

other people. the US is currently at a historical low in terms of worldwide esteem. I think the recent Gallup polls resulted in an estimated 80% of the world disliking the US. thats probably realistic too - here in Germany i'd say its more like 90%. in Russia it's probably around 95%. and in Iran or Iraq... lol.

Quote:

Now I know you've heard of the Soviet Union, since you mentioned them. Last I checked they had lots of nukes.

i meant pre-US. aka 19th century or before.

Quote:

How exactly are terrorists going to get their hands on this nuclear device? Nuclear weapons are not something you can make in a mountain cave. They require a lot of high tech infrastructure to refine the nuclear material.

you can theoretically obtain fissile materials today, maybe with large bribes etc. in any case I am not one to guarantee that its impossible.

Quote:

Also, I'd point out that it most certainly wouldn't end with a mushroom cloud over a US city.

the US foreign policy as of today would probably end, or at least become much more moderate. there would be nobody to bomb in revenge, so they would have to concede millions of victims for nothing. ok, they might find someone - Iran for example - but a onetime occurrence would probably be enough to radically reevaluate the risks. it would have to be a nuclear bomb though - 9/11 wasnt enough yet.

Quote:

We could like, start with the whole the USA is the most hated nation in history and go from there. Point: Nanjing massacre riled up people a lot more than McDonalds-in-your-backyard did.

not really. Nanjing is basically known in China and a few more SE countries. so maybe 2 billions (if we - unrealistically - say that everyone in SE Asia disliked JP as a result). if we take the above Gallup estimates as a basis, we've got around 4 billion people disliking the US today.

also, Nanjing casualties are estimated at around 100,000-200,000. the two US bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more than that. i dont even mention the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden.

Quote:

Another point: blind anti-Americanism (whereby everything American sucks, as your opinion seems to demonstrate here) is not the prevailing diplomatic stance of most, if not all, European states, no matter what the prevailing public opinion is.

lol do you realize what you just said? yes an anti-US policy may be not the prevailing stance of EU states... but they're, coincidentally, democracies. so a government that doesnt represent its people will ultimately get busted. and some do. yes, you may say that in many EU countries all the major parties basically run a US-subservient course (for many reasons), contradicting the will of the vast majority of their own population.... but all that you're admitting by that is that you're supporting tyranny and stuff being forced on people against their will.

Quote:

Oh, and yet another hint: much of the USA's hegemony in world politics is based on its economic strength and its system of alliances as well, not just some sort of singular, oppressive "force."

that was the case previously, in the 50s-80s. nowadays, not anymore. the US economy is not competitive anymore, nearly anywhere. the few sectors that remain are basically: arms, aerospace, computers/software, agricultural equipment, and biotech. just about everything else, the US economy works for its inner market and is not competitive internationally.

Quote:

And finally: mushroom clouds? Newsflash: the Cold War ended almost two decades ago.

i think you're also not entirely in the clear of the political realities of the world... the Cold War never ended. while the USSR might have unilaterally ended it on its side, and reduced its BMs, warheads, and military budget, the US never did. it just kept going on much in the same way. and since Russia nowadays is returning back on the arms race track - see recent Russia-Georgia war - it's basically Cold War all over again.

to quote one of the oldest and most experienced German journalists - Peter Scholl-Latour - when asked "When is the new Cold War coming?" at a political roundtable earlier this year he said "Coming? It's already here."

Whether the US is the most liked or disliked country depends on the period, but it's truly flattering, either way, that the entire world cares enough to boo the Iraqi invasion and cheer Obama's election.

Them's the kicks for being a superpower.

Oh, and as for the most hated (as opposed to simply disliked) country in history, I'd think Nazi Germany would take the cake. You just don't get away with committing genocide against white people, no sir.

If you consider the presumed fact that at one time Saudis were actually planning to destroy Kaaba, around the time they were showered with the British gold, you can see, those things do not matter a lot, when it comes to bigger gains. Islamic world is full of views like that.

Perhaps, but add something like that to the tensions between sunnis and shiites and you'll have problems.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mg1942

I thought Muhammad died in Medina.....kinda hard for him to die on the Arabian Peninsula and then ascend to heaven from a Jewish city.......

no. "planning a strike" is not a justification for a preemptive nuclear attack. Israel would be eradicated after that, by whatever means available to Arab states.

Justification? There is no justificaion for a nuclear strike AT ALL. That doens't mean it could never happen. If Israel has intelligence that Iran is about to launch a nuclear strike, they will launch a premptive strike.

As for the Arab states, the problem there is they would have no means to eradicate Israel unless an Iranian strike took out a good chunk of the Israeli military. The surrounding arab states aren't exactly shining examples of military compotence. They failed to beat Israel with a unified attack before, and the balance of power has shifted in Israel's favor since then.

Quote:

how should I best put it... Israel is like an attack dog which is being kept at a short leash. it cannot do anything major by itself, but it can bite its neighborhood every now and then. ok as an analogy?

What would you define as major? Israel has conducted military operations without US approval. Even in the 2006 invasion of Lebanon, they used cluster bombs against civilian population centers after the US told them not to. To which we responded by saying don't do it again and selling them more bombs. Sure the US always supports them after the fact, but that does not mean they conduct everything with the blessing of the US. They don't have to, since we've always come around.

Quote:

although tbh what that analogy is missing is the backlink from the dog to the master.. which is also substantial in this particular case.

Which is why the US has committed so many troops to the defense of Israel over the years. Oh that's right, we haven't. Yes Israel is a US ally, but they're not a close ally. We sell them weapons and tell them not to do stupid things with them, which they do anyway, so we foolishly sell them more. We don't sign off on every action they take though.

Quote:

the British Empire was never even close. or did it have a fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers capable of bombing almost every country in the world into the ground within months?

It did control 1/4 of the landmass of Earth. The Royal navy ruled the seas for hundreds of years. Sorry, but that's more than the US can claim. Sure they didn't have nukes, but they seemed to do fine without them, for the most part.

Quote:

other people. the US is currently at a historical low in terms of worldwide esteem. I think the recent Gallup polls resulted in an estimated 80% of the world disliking the US. thats probably realistic too - here in Germany i'd say its more like 90%. in Russia it's probably around 95%. and in Iran or Iraq... lol.

Disliking the US is not the same as hating the US. There's a big difference between having an unfavorible attitude towards US policies and chanting death to America. While opinions of the US have been declining in recent years, that's likely directly attributable to Bushy and his policies. Also your numbers are inflated.

Quote:

i meant pre-US. aka 19th century or before.

That's because nuclear weapons didn't exist yet. That still didn't stop people from killing each other with ruthless efficency, or from burning cities to the ground though.

Quote:

you can theoretically obtain fissile materials today, maybe with large bribes etc. in any case I am not one to guarantee that its impossible.

Right, theoretically, with large bribes. You do realize how tightly controlled such materials are, correct?

Quote:

the US foreign policy as of today would probably end, or at least become much more moderate. there would be nobody to bomb in revenge, so they would have to concede millions of victims for nothing. ok, they might find someone - Iran for example - but a onetime occurrence would probably be enough to radically reevaluate the risks. it would have to be a nuclear bomb though - 9/11 wasnt enough yet.

You don't seem to understand the American psyche. Look at what the US did after 9-11. Now imagine that, only the US that no longer gives a shit about international law or avoiding civilian causalties. Remember, the Bushy adminstration did present a weak case for the invasion of Iraq. We at least played lipservice to international law, so that's not the kind of situation I'm talking about.

Quote:

not really. Nanjing is basically known in China and a few more SE countries. so maybe 2 billions (if we - unrealistically - say that everyone in SE Asia disliked JP as a result). if we take the above Gallup estimates as a basis, we've got around 4 billion people disliking the US today.

Funny I learned about it in school. Also once again, your numbers are inflated.

Quote:

also, Nanjing casualties are estimated at around 100,000-200,000. the two US bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more than that. i dont even mention the firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden.

That's of course not mentioning the rest of China, let alone the other areas Japan occupied. I could cite some numbers, but I don't want to play your who killed the most people game. World War II was a total war where the bombing of civilian population centers was par for the course. Good that you don't mention Dresden though, since the US wasn't the one who did the main fire bombing. You can thank the Royal Airforce for that one.

Quote:

lol do you realize what you just said? yes an anti-US policy may be not the prevailing stance of EU states... but they're, coincidentally, democracies. so a government that doesnt represent its people will ultimately get busted. and some do. yes, you may say that in many EU countries all the major parties basically run a US-subservient course (for many reasons), contradicting the will of the vast majority of their own population.... but all that you're admitting by that is that you're supporting tyranny and stuff being forced on people against their will.

See the thing is, while they may not like current US policy, that is not the same as hating the US. The people may support a distancing from the US, but they most certainly do not support a severing of ties or anything extreme like that.

Quote:

that was the case previously, in the 50s-80s. nowadays, not anymore. the US economy is not competitive anymore, nearly anywhere. the few sectors that remain are basically: arms, aerospace, computers/software, agricultural equipment, and biotech. just about everything else, the US economy works for its inner market and is not competitive internationally.

You might be more convincing if those weren't all huge business sectors you mentioned, if there wasn't a McDonalds in or near your city, if there weren't any US movies playing in your theaters, if the US auto industry didn't own quite a few european companies, and if you weren't typing that on a computer running software from a US company.

Quote:

i think you're also not entirely in the clear of the political realities of the world... the Cold War never ended. while the USSR might have unilaterally ended it on its side, and reduced its BMs, warheads, and military budget, the US never did. it just kept going on much in the same way. and since Russia nowadays is returning back on the arms race track - see recent Russia-Georgia war - it's basically Cold War all over again.

Except that you're flat out wrong there. The US reduced its military a lot since the cold war. We did in fact reduce our nuclear arsenal in accordance to the START treaty. Also the Soviet Union didn't simply cut spending on it's military, it no longer exists as a nation.

Quote:

to quote one of the oldest and most experienced German journalists - Peter Scholl-Latour - when asked "When is the new Cold War coming?" at a political roundtable he said "Coming? It's already here."

Great that's one guy's opinion. If you look you can find many more who disagree. What we're seeing in Russia is most certainly not a return to their cold war stance.

Perhaps, but add something like that to the tensions between sunnis and shiites and you'll have problems.

Even though they may have tensions, they (the ones near the middle east, at the least) unite at one ideal. Both sides would prefer an erased Israel over many things, no matter how outrageous it may sound.

Israel could have done more to erase those fears, after all that will make them feel unconstrained. But, maybe US has more part in that compared to Israel. US's plans for the region actually prevented that to be developing, friendly relationship, that is. If US wouldn't have supported dictatorship regimes at the region, for a very long time, the ordinary people in that region wouldn't have to feel locking his mind to the outside world (that is still going on). US was afraid losing the unconditional support of those countries in the region, but, if they were a true friend of Israel, they would have done much better. So that brings me to my final point, are they really friends? Or, is there some bigger plan that is going on behind many secret doors, that has allowed Israel to accept the ongoing state within the middle east.